NationStates

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Why does "a spiritual mother" sound like something a minigun-wielding nun would declare herself to be just after she's kicked down the church doors!?

Because mothers protect their children.

To answer this point seriously, I think we can acknowledge the reality that women generally are better disposed towards caring roles without telling those who aren't that they're faulty or defying their own essential nature by not feeling "called" to such a role.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:To answer this point seriously, I think we can acknowledge the reality that women generally are better disposed towards caring roles without telling those who aren't that they're faulty or defying their own essential nature by not feeling "called" to such a role.

Depends what you mean by caring. There's plenty of evidence fatherhood and male influence on children has a multitude of positive effects (Including, ironically, rough-housing and physical play fighting with fathers Is linked with valuing bodily autonomy and consent and the ability to distinguish between consensual physical fun and non-consensual. So that's another feminist own-goal there that arose from their war on fatherhood.).

Our society characterizes motherhood as caring because it devalues the caring men do and characterizes it as something else, either something detrimental and destructive, or useless.

There's also the fact that empathy is linked to fatherhood influence. So if womens care work were the source of "caring", why does caring about other people dry up in the absence of men? It would seem that the work is being done by those mothers fathers (The grandfather) through them as a proxy.

Women are carriers of the caring meme with regards to children, but do not appear to be able to spread it, at least not as effectively as men. I would suggest that this implies "care" is a masculine trait.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:To answer this point seriously, I think we can acknowledge the reality that women generally are better disposed towards caring roles without telling those who aren't that they're faulty or defying their own essential nature by not feeling "called" to such a role.

While fair, it's also important to note that the genius of women is a wide spectrum which ranges from the compassionate gifts of St. Mother Theresa to military genius of St. Joan of Arc. But regardless of where specific women fall on that spectrum they're still called to virtue or spiritual motherhood.

Sundiata wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:To answer this point seriously, I think we can acknowledge the reality that women generally are better disposed towards caring roles without telling those who aren't that they're faulty or defying their own essential nature by not feeling "called" to such a role.

While fair, it's also important to note that the genius of women is a wide spectrum which ranges from the compassionate gifts of Mother Theresa to military genius of St. Joan of Arc. But regardless of where specific women fall on that spectrum they're still called to virtue.

If everyone is called to virtue but that virtue can take different forms then it's difficult - or at least to me as an agnostic-atheist - to understand what you mean by the unique motherly virtues of women as opposed to virtue in men.

Oh, and let's not ignore maternal gatekeeping and its prevalence which likewise undermines the notion women are caring. Is someone really your friend if they chase away all other friends you have so they can have your approval all for themselves?

Womens predominant form of "care" is more like munchausen syndrome that has been normalized and celebrated when it should have been confronted and deconstructed. It's part of their identity that they are "caring" and so they seek to monopolize that role, in the process becoming actually quite uncaring and routinely sacrificing the wellbeing of their charges to their own egos.

It's about power over another human being and their own identity being validated.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Sundiata wrote:While fair, it's also important to note that the genius of women is a wide spectrum which ranges from the compassionate gifts of Mother Theresa to military genius of St. Joan of Arc. But regardless of where specific women fall on that spectrum they're still called to virtue.

If everyone is called to virtue but that virtue can take different forms then it's difficult - or at least to me as an agnostic-atheist - to understand what you mean by the unique motherly virtues of women as opposed to virtue in men.

Ultimately, I'm referring to the feminine genius. It's an intangible form of genius that women have which makes them equal to men in terms of their deserved dignity but distinguished in terms of their beauty.

Sundiata wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
If everyone is called to virtue but that virtue can take different forms then it's difficult - or at least to me as an agnostic-atheist - to understand what you mean by the unique motherly virtues of women as opposed to virtue in men.

Ultimately, I'm referring to the feminine genius. It's an intangible form of genius that women have which makes them equal to men in terms of their deserved dignity but distinguished in terms of their beauty.

What exactly does it entail?

Sundiata wrote:

Purgatio wrote:


Wait till you learn about those women who are born to be lesbians. I mean, I've debated with you in the past to know you don't think lesbianism is a thing or that people can be born gay/lesbian but....yeah, whether you like it or not, some women out there are born, biologically and innately, as lesbians. Solely attracted to other women. Are they all "made to be mothers" too? What a load of nonsense this is.

Regarding same-sex attraction, the feelings of people who experience it, are in fact legitimate. But to answer your question, yes. Women who experience same-sex attraction are called to be spiritual mothers. Or in other words, virtuous and kind.

"Spiritual mother". Lmao okay. Telling lesbians they are called to be "spiritual mothers" totally doesn't sound sexist and condescending and arrogant. Not at all.

Sundiata wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
If everyone is called to virtue but that virtue can take different forms then it's difficult - or at least to me as an agnostic-atheist - to understand what you mean by the unique motherly virtues of women as opposed to virtue in men.

Ultimately, I'm referring to the feminine genius. It's an intangible form of genius that women have which makes them equal to men in terms of their deserved dignity but distinguished in terms of their beauty.

Wtf does any of this mean?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Ultimately, I'm referring to the feminine genius. It's an intangible form of genius that women have which makes them equal to men in terms of their deserved dignity but distinguished in terms of their beauty.

What exactly does it entail?

Appreciating motherhood, both physical and spiritual and not viewing femininity as a weakness. Spiritual motherhood precedes physical motherhood.

Purgatio wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Ultimately, I'm referring to the feminine genius. It's an intangible form of genius that women have which makes them equal to men in terms of their deserved dignity but distinguished in terms of their beauty.

Wtf does any of this mean?

That a woman who behaves virtuously is a good woman regardless of whether or not she has biological children.

Ostroeuropa wrote:It's part of their identity that they are "caring" and so they seek to monopolize that role, in the process becoming actually quite uncaring and routinely sacrificing the wellbeing of their charges to their own egos.

There's no reason, why parents couldn't be caring (in good, not manipulative, possessive, toxic etc. way) despite gender, sexuality, culture, society norms etc. If i could be mother in normal body, in normal world (i don't see "that world" as "normal", after all my experiences, observations, feelings), since born, then, if my personality, character or something like that would be the same, then i don't see reason, why i would need to not be uncaring and sacrificing well-being due to of own children. In my situation i feel more like something like that is stealth since my born. You know. If other, who are really real, are in good, in good road etc. it is also part of own well-being as mother. Even when it mean sacrifice for them. So someone can claim that it is egoistic part of altruism, if everything is egoistic.
quote]It's about power over another human being and their own identity being validated.[/quote]
I don't really understand that pov. I have no power and don't look in that kind of prism. I see, and understand, that other can view and in process of trying understand others, i can visualise, imagine their pov from that prism, however with problems.

Depends what you mean by caring.

Caring can have different forms. Probably most "valued" is "caring" by "doing", but it is also possible caring by feeling, attitude, thinking etc. etc. When someone only "want good for everyone", it's probably most "unvalued", "because that someone don't do anything for others".

Sundiata wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
What exactly does it entail?

Appreciating motherhood, both physical and spiritual and not viewing femininity as a weakness. Spiritual motherhood precedes physical motherhood.

After all, the Lord was received in his mother's heart before he was received in his mother's womb.

We should appreciate anyone who does a socially important job well.

We seem to be pursuing this "intangible quality" in one great circle without ever getting closer to any notion of what it might be. Women are called to be mothers because they're women and when they're successful even in areas that aren't traditionally motherly this reflects a motherly feminine genius which they have because they're women. Okay but what is it? And back around we go.

You're talking of some spiritual essence here that I fear does not and cannot make sense to those from outside a particular religious tradition where it's taken as an axiom because its an entirely different ontology.

Sundiata wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Wtf does any of this mean?

That a woman who behaves virtuously is a good woman regardless of whether or not she has biological children.

What does any of that have to do with your bizarre claims of "feminine genius...an intangible form of genius...distinguished in terms of their beauty"??

Purgatio wrote:

Sundiata wrote:That a woman who behaves virtuously is a good woman regardless of whether or not she has biological children.

What does any of that have to do with your bizarre claims of "feminine genius...an intangible form of genius...distinguished in terms of their beauty"??

I dunno, but I would NEVER say it to a real woman. She might scream and kick me in the balls.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
What does any of that have to do with your bizarre claims of "feminine genius...an intangible form of genius...distinguished in terms of their beauty"??

I dunno, but I would NEVER say it to a real woman. She might scream and kick me in the balls.

I don’t think women are (in the general sense, anyway) irrationally violent even when provoked by weird and sexist statements.

Rojava Free State wrote:
I knew of a girl who was forced to marry a guy the family chose for her at 17. They were Albanian and her entire life was ruined, now she's a slave to this rich rando.

Imagine being such a misogynist piece of shit you force your daughter to basically be raped by a man. Cause i doubt she got pregnant by him willingly.

I think the part that got me most in the interviews is Dawn, the 13 year old who was married to a 32 year old, trying to separate from her "husband" and the police bringing her back as a runaway minor and the courts telling her that she was too young to be a mother and that there was nothing they can do "because you were in a union" (as if unions aren't something that members in it can dissolve at any time?). Oh, so she's old enough to get married, have sex, and give birth, but when she wants to leave or raise her kids independently, suddenly she's just a child? How about you don't fucking marry or screw people too young to handle independence or children? How about if someone is basically rendered as captured property because of their age when in a marriage, you don't marry them to someone? Flipping back and forth between "too young" and "old enough" based on what is convenient for the abuser, and the law was supporting it.

And not that this makes it worse than other victims, but this was with a white family in California, not some insulated immigrant family from a culture where this was normal. So it shows that the reach of callous misogyny and bad ideas about marriage and children can reach into supposedly forward-thinking countries and systems. These are California judges who allowed a 13 year old to be married to a 32 year old, who was outright claiming to have been raped and abused by this guy (in case it wasn't obvious enough from the circumstances), and were like, "Oh well. You may be a bride but you're also a child so you're basically property, now shut up and get back to being a slave." What a nightmarish scenario.

Sundiata wrote:Fulton J. Sheen said it best, "Every woman is made to be a mother either physical or spiritual."

It's good to have opportunities to be tender and kind.

I get that you think that a lot of the things you say sound really kind, gentle, and uplifting, but actually it's really, really gross, and it's not appreciated no matter how nice of a tone you take on. If you really want to care about others and their wellbeing, you need to stop relying on whatever your detached pastor tells you is the right way to treat them and start listening to those types of people themselves tell you about to treat them. Your religious teachers do not speak for or get to make the rules for everyone else.

I'm a woman. That "kind mother" shit? It's gross, and I don't appreciate it, and I don't appreciate you trying to act like you know better than me about that. That's arrogant and patronizing as hell, not complimentary, and it doesn't matter how much you intended it to be. Perhaps you've heard that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Sundiata wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
What exactly does it entail?

Appreciating motherhood, both physical and spiritual and not viewing femininity as a weakness. Spiritual motherhood precedes physical motherhood.

After all, the Lord was received in his mother's heart before he was received in his mother's womb.

I'll start caring about what theology thinks about anything when God or his angels or whatever come down here and tell me their opinions themselves, never so long as it continues to be a bunch of random mostly-men just spouting their own opinions and urging the rest of us that God agrees with them, totes for realz gaiz, just believe them, they just know we can totes trust them they totes know what they're talking about for realz cuz they believe hard.

Susan B. Anthony said as much, and you might have noticed she had some pretty good reasons to be suspicious of the theologians of her time.

Giovenith wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
I knew of a girl who was forced to marry a guy the family chose for her at 17. They were Albanian and her entire life was ruined, now she's a slave to this rich rando.

Imagine being such a misogynist piece of shit you force your daughter to basically be raped by a man. Cause i doubt she got pregnant by him willingly.

I think the part that got me most in the interviews is Dawn, the 13 year old who was married to a 32 year old, trying to separate from her "husband" and the police bringing her back as a runaway minor and the courts telling her that she was too young to be a mother and that there was nothing they can do "because you were in a union" (as if unions aren't something that members in it can dissolve at any time?). Oh, so she's old enough to get married, have sex, and give birth, but when she wants to leave or raise her kids independently, suddenly she's just a child? How about you don't fucking marry or screw people too young to handle independence or children? How about if someone is basically rendered as captured property because of their age when in a marriage, you don't marry them to someone? Flipping back and forth between "too young" and "old enough" based on what is convenient for the abuser, and the law was supporting it.

And not that this makes it worse than other victims, but this was with a white family in California, not some insulated immigrant family from a culture where this was normal. So it shows that the reach of callous misogyny and bad ideas about marriage and children can reach into supposedly forward-thinking countries and systems. These are California judges who allowed a 13 year old to be married to a 32 year old, who was outright claiming to have been raped and abused by this guy (in case it wasn't obvious enough from the circumstances), and were like, "Oh well. You may be a bride but you're also a child so you're basically property, now shut up and get back to being a slave." What a nightmarish scenario.

Stuff like this is frighteningly common. People not old enough to drink or smoke can be sent to war. People not old enough to vote can be charged as an adult with serious crimes. Boys not even old enough to drive can be forced to support their rapists for fathering their children.

There's a whole slew of double standards when it comes to children vs adults and when you are treated as a child vs when you are treated as an adult. The one you just talked about is one of the most heinous, but there are plenty to go around.

Galloism wrote:

Giovenith wrote:
I think the part that got me most in the interviews is Dawn, the 13 year old who was married to a 32 year old, trying to separate from her "husband" and the police bringing her back as a runaway minor and the courts telling her that she was too young to be a mother and that there was nothing they can do "because you were in a union" (as if unions aren't something that members in it can dissolve at any time?). Oh, so she's old enough to get married, have sex, and give birth, but when she wants to leave or raise her kids independently, suddenly she's just a child? How about you don't fucking marry or screw people too young to handle independence or children? How about if someone is basically rendered as captured property because of their age when in a marriage, you don't marry them to someone? Flipping back and forth between "too young" and "old enough" based on what is convenient for the abuser, and the law was supporting it.

And not that this makes it worse than other victims, but this was with a white family in California, not some insulated immigrant family from a culture where this was normal. So it shows that the reach of callous misogyny and bad ideas about marriage and children can reach into supposedly forward-thinking countries and systems. These are California judges who allowed a 13 year old to be married to a 32 year old, who was outright claiming to have been raped and abused by this guy (in case it wasn't obvious enough from the circumstances), and were like, "Oh well. You may be a bride but you're also a child so you're basically property, now shut up and get back to being a slave." What a nightmarish scenario.

Stuff like this is frighteningly common. People not old enough to drink or smoke can be sent to war. People not old enough to vote can be charged as an adult with serious crimes. Boys not even old enough to drive can be forced to support their rapists for fathering their children.

There's a whole slew of double standards when it comes to children vs adults and when you are treated as a child vs when you are treated as an adult. The one you just talked about is one of the most heinous, but there are plenty to go around.

Yup. For the record, the org does support boys too, their statement specifically says "anyone effected by forced or child marriage."

I am disturbed by what I see, in general, as the underlying almost sadistic attitude much of society takes towards children, especially teenagers. This may seem way out of left field, but take for example these laws trying to fine kids over 12 for trick or treating — like, who the hell honestly cares if a 15 year old wants to go door-to-door and get candy? How else are they supposed to celebrate? We obviously don't want them drinking or wearing skimpy costumes like adults, but they're not allowed to do the kid activities either? Or personal stories that I hear of teens being expected to "hang out with" (i.e., babysit) the little kids during family gatherings like Christmas or vacations because oh they're just one of the kids, but then are denied things like presents and pocket money because oh they're too old for that now.

That sort of thing manifests in a lot of ways, like people almost think older children deserve to be miserable and mistreated because they're just that horrible. And like you said, gender roles effects the ways that boys and girls specifically are mistreated, with the old traditional roles of soldier and wifey at play. Both are a form of society wanting to use developed bodies for its own purposes without the drawbacks of having to respect the minds within those bodies, and while we usually recognize this for the tyranny that it is, teenagehood seems to be one of the few loopholes that we allow this abuse to slip through.

Giovenith wrote:And not that this makes it worse than other victims, but this was with a white family in California, not some insulated immigrant family from a culture where this was normal. So it shows that the reach of callous misogyny and bad ideas about marriage and children can reach into supposedly forward-thinking countries and systems. These are California judges who allowed a 13 year old to be married to a 32 year old, who was outright claiming to have been raped and abused by this guy (in case it wasn't obvious enough from the circumstances), and were like, "Oh well. You may be a bride but you're also a child so you're basically property, now shut up and get back to being a slave." What a nightmarish scenario.

I was married at 26. I was too young, immature and i don't was sincere about myself (so in the end marriage was untrue and invalid). From my pov, age is only some kind of social border to distinguish laws based on simple but not always accurate points. Some peoples can be more mature in young, and some not even in old. Also can be more mature in one things and lack maturity in others. Whatever maturity means - it isn't necessary something that others want to impose of other (eg. probably famous example "alcohol, drug etc. is symbol of maturity, so when someone use it, then that someone is mature - nope. Even when someone have many years and often use alcohol etc. it doesn't mean, that someone is mature). Statements like "you are too old/young" isn't necessary appropriate. It rise problem like, "you are too old, so you must hurry and marry someone" or "you are too young to be (put lgbt terms like gay, trans etc.)", but it doesn't mean, that someone really is or not (put lgbt terms). My "wanting to be normal girl" was clear for me since i was 13-14 year, earlier i had premises. About my attraction etc. stuff, i wasn't sure until age 31. Now i'm not in marriage of any kind, and never will be.

VVerkia wrote:

Giovenith wrote:And not that this makes it worse than other victims, but this was with a white family in California, not some insulated immigrant family from a culture where this was normal. So it shows that the reach of callous misogyny and bad ideas about marriage and children can reach into supposedly forward-thinking countries and systems. These are California judges who allowed a 13 year old to be married to a 32 year old, who was outright claiming to have been raped and abused by this guy (in case it wasn't obvious enough from the circumstances), and were like, "Oh well. You may be a bride but you're also a child so you're basically property, now shut up and get back to being a slave." What a nightmarish scenario.

I was married at 26. I was too young, immature and i don't was sincere about myself (so in the end marriage was untrue and invalid). From my pov, age is only some kind of social border to distinguish laws based on simple but not always accurate points. Some peoples can be more mature in young, and some not even in old. Also can be more mature in one things and lack maturity in others. Whatever maturity means - it isn't necessary something that others want to impose of other (eg. probably famous example "alcohol, drug etc. is symbol of maturity, so when someone use it, then that someone is mature - nope. Even when someone have many years and often use alcohol etc. it doesn't mean, that someone is mature). Statements like "you are too old/young" isn't necessary appropriate. It rise problem like, "you are too old, so you must hurry and marry someone" or "you are too young to be (put lgbt terms like gay, trans etc.)", but it doesn't mean, that someone really is or not (put lgbt terms). My "wanting to be normal girl" was clear for me since i was 13-14 year, earlier i had premises. About my attraction etc. stuff, i wasn't sure until age 31. Now i'm not in marriage of any kind, and never will be.

I came dangerously close to getting married at 20 and I know I wasn't ready for it then, am not ready for it now and won't be probably ever.

Is this thread still alive? If so, just thought I’d share that I saw some strange debate in an article over whether or not Margaret Thatcher was “a feminist icon”.

The Radical Feminist Alliance is now open for women only.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Is this thread still alive? If so, just thought I’d share that I saw some strange debate in an article over whether or not Margaret Thatcher was “a feminist icon”.

In no way shape or form was Thatcher a feminist so how she can be a "feminist icon" is beyond me